Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Questions of Fact About Liability for Broker Commission After Expiration of Brokerage Agreement
In an action to recover a brokerage commission, broker appealed the New York Supreme Court's denial of its summary judgment motion. Douglas Elliman of LI, LLC v. Roselle Building Co, Inc., NYLJ 2/14/22, p. 25, col. 2 AppDiv, Second Dept. (memorandum opinion). The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that questions of fact remained about seller's liability for a commission after expiration of the brokerage agreement.
The seller entered into a brokerage agreement providing for a 5% commission if seller entered into a contract of sale or sold the property within 60 days after termination of the agreement if the buyer had been shown the property during the term of the agreement. The agreement expired in August 2016, but the parties extended it until January 2017. The parties dispute whether they subsequently entered into an oral agreement for an open listing. In December 2017, the seller contracted to sell the property to the long-time tenant, with whom a prior sale attempt had fallen through. The contract identified the broker by name, and provided that seller would pay any commission earned pursuant to a separate agreement between broker and seller. When seller failed to pay a commission, the broker brought this action and moved for summary judgment. The New York Supreme Court denied the motion and broker appealed.
In affirming, the Appellate Division held that questions of fact about the seller's obligation to pay a commission precluded summary judgment. The court concluded that the contract of sale did not clearly admit that the broker had performed services with respect to the sale contract and did not clearly establish seller's obligation to pay a commission on that sale.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?